It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

page: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So because of that all, I don’t agree in any way with your conclusion that it was nothing more than a cloud.


I only said the cloud explains the radar returns and the silhouette of the giant spaceship, not the lights. My explanation starts on page 3


I did understand that quite well.




posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Tifozi is a pilot and he commented on that regarding the radar the pilot uses, you can get a return from a larger cloud he said, but I'd have to go back and read his exact words. The radar contact to the plane was not steady like a solid object. I've flown in the front seat of helicopters and watched clouds on the helicopter radar, and those varied by the type of helicopter and radar system. I've never flown in the cockpit of a 747 so I have no idea how the 747 radar shows a cloud, back when this happened. I could probably get a picture of the current radar systems used which as I said are more sophisticated, but the radars simply weren't as advanced back then as they are today.

And regarding the ground radar, you'd get the kind of return they got, one that comes and goes and doesn't give a consistent track, if the cloud isn't that dense which it doesn't appear to be from the satellite image. The air traffic controller for JL1628 said they never had a consistent return on the ground radar, EVER. That tells me it wasn't a solid object, since they couldn't track it.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So because of that all, I don’t agree in any way with your conclusion that it was nothing more than a cloud.


I only said the cloud explains the radar returns and the silhouette of the giant spaceship, not the lights. My explanation starts on page 3

I did understand that quite well.


OK the reason I didn't think you understood was because of this comment in your post:


Originally posted by spacevisitor
But there were more objects seen during that trip.
First they saw those smaller lights and because of their behavior and their effects one cannot mistake these as being clouds in my opinion.


I never claimed they mistook the smaller lights (that looked like airport lights) for a cloud, and that left me with the impression you thought that's what I was suggesting, so maybe I misunderstood your post. And while they did dart around a bit as I would expect a reflection off the atmosphere to do, they were always in the direction of Allen army airfield, that's more than a coincidence I think, when you realize how much the lights resemble airport lights.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Tifozi is a pilot and he commented on that regarding the radar the pilot uses, you can get a return from a larger cloud he said, but I'd have to go back and read his exact words.

I'm sure you can get some sort of a return from a larger cloud under conditions even though these type of radar systems are not meant to. This would not result in a target which can be compared to another solid object such as another airplane though. It would result in some kind of clutter. There is lots of stuff which can paint some kind of target on the scope. The devil is in the details.


The radar contact to the plane was not steady like a solid object.
From which data/statements do you conclude this?


but the radars simply weren't as advanced back then as they are today.

This is a cop-out. Depending on what was seen on scope we could potentially draw some kind of conclusion.


The air traffic controller for JL1628 said they never had a consistent return on the ground radar, EVER. That tells me it wasn't a solid object, since they couldn't track it.

Perhaps. Depends also on the radar system. Did the plane get a consistent radar return? Does the cloud match the direction of the target they spotted on radar?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

The radar contact to the plane was not steady like a solid object.
From which data/statements do you conclude this?

Depends also on the radar system. Did the plane get a consistent radar return? Does the cloud match the direction of the target they spotted on radar?


Good questions. It was actually the color of the radar return that tells us it's a cloud!! Green is a cloud, red is an aircraft, and it was green!

brumac.8k.com...


TERAUCHI wrote (2), " I thought it would be impossible to find anything on an aircraft radar if a large ground radar did not show anything, but I judged the distance of the object visually and it was not very far. I set the digital weather radar distance to 20 (nautical) miles, radar angle to horizon (i.e., no depression angle). There it was on the screen. A large green and round object (here he refers to the image or "blip" on the radar screen) had appeared at 7 or 8 miles (13 km to 15 km) away, where the direction of the object was.

FLIGHT engineer Tsukuba recalled seeing on the radar screen at "about 10 miles" a "green dot like, not exactly a dot. It was not a dot but stream like", i.e., elongated. He did "not think it (the radar target) was the same lights as the one (sic) I saw in front of us."


OK Captain says it's a green dot, the flight engineer also says it's green but stretched out. But the flight engineer was right in thinking the radar return was not the same as the lights in front of them, and the data shows the lights are in one location and the radar return is in a slightly different direction , and the difference in the direction gets magnified as the flight progresses, which is consistent with the radar being from the cloud and the lights being from the airport.


In commenting on the radar image the captain pointed out that "normally it appears in red when an aircraft radar catches another aircraft" whereas green is usually the color of a weak weather target such as a cloud.


OK if a green color is a weak target such as a cloud, isn't it reasonable to think it could have been a cloud? They all say it was green, not red like an aircraft would be.

And yes the cloud always matched the directions of the radar returns they got as far as I can tell. They requested a heading change to fly around the cloud, and the satellite picture I posted has blue arrows on it showing the direction of the radar returns, and they all point to the cloud. And all the visual sightings of the lights point to the airport.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Firstly, regarding your conclusion that the very big object [the so called mother ship] what was seen by the pilots was in fact a cloud, I suggest you to read the lines below this document, because there is stated that the flight conditions where clear and there were no clouds.


By the way that big cloud they picked up on radar wasn't the only cloud, the copilot reported other clouds to the air traffic controller, that they flew over:

brumac.8k.com...


SHORTLY after the copilot told the AARTCC, at 5:23:05, that the clouds were "below us"



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Almost all of the UFO's nowadays are explainable thanks to the analysis and effort put into by the experts. However there are a few which make you think!



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I never claimed they mistook the smaller lights (that looked like airport lights) for a cloud, and that left me with the impression you thought that's what I was suggesting, so maybe I misunderstood your post. And while they did dart around a bit as I would expect a reflection off the atmosphere to do, they were always in the direction of Allen army airfield, that's more than a coincidence I think, when you realize how much the lights resemble airport lights.


You are right, I am fully aware that you never claimed that they mistook the smaller lights (that looked like airport lights) for a cloud and it was not a matter that you maybe misunderstand my post; I must not have made that point or suggesting about it in the first place.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Firstly, regarding your conclusion that the very big object [the so called mother ship] what was seen by the pilots was in fact a cloud, I suggest you to read the lines below this document, because there is stated that the flight conditions where clear and there were no clouds.


By the way that big cloud they picked up on radar wasn't the only cloud, the copilot reported other clouds to the air traffic controller, that they flew over:

brumac.8k.com...


SHORTLY after the copilot told the AARTCC, at 5:23:05, that the clouds were "below us"


You are right about that Arbitrageur, but what do you think then of that quite remarkable conversation about clouds between AARTCC and the JAL1628 foregoing the moment the co pilot said that.


AFTER learning the color of the strobe lights the AARTCC began to ask about flying conditions (“normal”) and clouds (“below us”).

It took from 5:22:11 to 5:23:05, or about a minute, for the AARTCC to get an answer about the clouds because of interference with the radio transmissions.

At 5:22:41 the AARTCC told the plane the transmissions were "garbled" and asked it to change transmitting frequencies.

In his testimony the pilot recalled the several requests for cloud altitude: "They asked us several times if there were clouds near our altitude.

We saw thin and spotty clouds near the mountain below us, no clouds in mid-to-upper air, and the air current was steady."

The repeated questions about the clouds caused Terauchi to wonder why the controller was so interested in clouds.

He speculated, "Perhaps the controllers were concerned that an increased use of improved lazer (sic) beams using (sic) clouds was creating moving images." (Here Terauchi refers to laser beams illuminating the clouds.

Of course, there were no sufficiently powerful visible laser beams in the "wilds" of Alaska at that time.... nor are there now.)

THE pilot also remembered the communication problem: "The VHF communications, both in transmitting and receiving, were extremely difficult for 10 to 15 minutes while the little ships came close to us and often interefered with communication and Anchorage Center.

However, communication conditions became good as soon as the ships left us. There were no abnormalities in the equipment of the aircraft."

When he was interviewed the captain was asked to describe
the type of interference he heard. He described the interference as "some kind of, like, ah, jamming... it was just a noise, sounded like zaa, zaa."

The communications capability was, he said, two out of five possible levels (5,4,3,2,1) with five being perfectly clear.(1)

Normally communications with a plane in that area would be good.


SHORTLY after the copilot told the AARTCC, at 5:23:05, that the clouds were "below us", he reported a new and sudden event:


So as far as I see it correct, there were thin and spotty clouds near the mountain below them, but no clouds in mid-to-upper air, so because of that I conclude that there were no clouds close or even near the plane.
And that is also what was said at the bottom in that statement I posted here.

reply to post by spacevisitor

So we still have different opinions regarding the cloud explanation.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Originally posted by spacevisitor
You are right about that Arbitrageur, but what do you think then of that quite remarkable conversation about clouds between AARTCC and the JAL1628 foregoing the moment the co pilot said that.


I think that conversation supports the cloud explanation. If they keep asking about a cloud then they are thinking as I am that maybe its a cloud. Then add to that the green color of their radar signature is the color of a cloud, their onboard radar confirms it's a cloud. That would be enough to be convincing, but there's more. There's a satellite image of the cloud. And add to that the fact that the radar returns all point to that cloud, it's so overwhelming I have little doubt about the cloud part of the explanation.

The part of my explanation I still have some doubts about is understanding how the airport mirage can be seen over such a long distance and for such a long time. There's an amazing fact Tifozi reported that seems to strengthen that explanation too though, that crossed runways like those at Allen army airfield often use directional runway lights. If you plot the light sightings on the map you see that when they are lined up with either runway (within a certain angle, less than 45 degrees), they see lights, and when they aren't lined up with either runway, they don't see any lights. This would be consistent with directional runway lights. While this still doesn't convince me 100%, I must say this raised my confidence in the possibility of the airport light explanation. The description of the lights also matches airport lights when you account for mirage distortions Remember the photo of the mirage I posted earlier:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.caelestia.be...




"This photo was published in the January 8, 2005 edition of the Mexican newspaper El Imparcial. The following "clarifications" were given: (snip) The image above is the first of this series and apparently shows not one but two "UFOs". The second photo is very similar except that, according to the newspaper's commentator, "Matter begins to fall from the object on the left before it lands on the hilltop".

In reality, the photos show a typical superior mirage, whereby distant mountain tops were not only stretched out vertically, but also mirrored in the sky above."


The description "Matter begins to fall from the object on the left before it lands on the hilltop" really gives us some clues about the type of distortions that mirages can create. The hillside isn't really moving around, it only looks that way, similarly the apparent motion of the lights seen by the JAL1628 crew could be explained by similar distortions in the reflection they were seeing.

At one point they said they saw what looked like landing lights, well what if it looked like landing lights because it actually WAS landing lights of a plane landing at the army airfield?

brumac.8k.com...

THE copilot, Takanori Tamefuji, compared the numerous lights or flames to "Christmas assorted" lights with a "salmon" color. (9) He said, "I remember red or orange, and white landing light, just like a landing light.


They did say the intensity of the lights varied, and reported some motion with the lights and color variations that all sound consistent with what I know about mirages.

But the overall length, time and distance of the sighting is amazing, though other amazing mirages have been reported in the Tanana valley, one that I posted about earlier filled the entire 500 mile wide valley, but that one was seen at ground level.


Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


G'day Arbitrageur

This is one of the best threads I've ever read on ATS.

It encompasses the sort of discussion & debate that keeps me here.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Thanks for the compliment, I just noticed I didn't acknowledge your post. I'm glad you like it and sorry for not responding earlier



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Well, to finish in a way our discussion about this fantastic flight of JAL 1628 I would just like to add these in my opinion decisive remarks from where out I conclude that it could not have been a cloud.


Bruce Maccabee
Summary: This is the complete report on the UFO sighting by the Japanese crew of a jumbo freighter aircraft in November, 1986. What you are about to read is the most complete and analytical investigation of this sighting ever published.

Captain Terauchi was featured on numerous radio and TV programs and in People Magazine. Within a few months of these events he was grounded, apparently for his indiscretion of reporting a UFO, even though he was a senior captain with an excellent flying record.


www.ufoevidence.org...


Disclosure Project: Testimony of John Callahan, Former FAA Division Chief
Source: Disclosure Project Briefing Document - Executive Summary
In his testimony he tells about a 1986 Japanese Airlines 747 flight that was followed by a UFO for 31 minutes over the Alaskan skies.

The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed.

There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation.


www.ufoevidence.org...


5:23:19 AARTCC - JAL1628 Roger. And I'm not receiving any radar replies.

It was probably at this time that the "two ships" which had been quite close to the plane since 5:18 or 5:19 PM suddenly moved farther away and to the left. Looking to the left the captain could now see that "there was a pale white flat light in the direction where the ships flew away, moving in a line along with us, in the same direction and same speed and at the same altitude as we were".

About this time the AARTCC controller decided to find out if the Air Force at Elmendorf Regional Operational Control Center had anything on its radar.




5:23:35 AARTCC - (to the ROCC) Could you look approximately forty miles south of Fort Yukon? There should be [JAL1628] up there. Can you tell me [if] you see [a] primary target and its position?

It took the ROCC operator about two minutes to answer the question. In the meantime significant events occurred aboard the plane and at the AARTCC.

It was now about 14 1/2 minutes since Capt. Terauchi had first seen the lights traveling along with his plane, about 6 to 7 minutes since the lights had appeared abruptly in front of the plane, and only a minute or so since the -ships- quickly moved away from the jet, apparently in the direction of the -flat pale white light- which the captain later described as like -two white fluorescent-like lights-.

A drawing made several hours later indicates that the lights were horizontally oriented and spaced apart, like two long fluorescent tubes end-to-end with a large dark gap in between them.

At this time in the flight he could only see the two white lights. He was not sure whether the two "ships" had become pale white lights after they moved away from the jet or if the white lights were something entirely different.

(He reported that later in the flight that he could see the outline of a large shape connecting the lights. After seeing the outline the captain had the impression that the distant lights were on a very large –mothership- and that the two small "ships" had traveled to the –mothership-.)

It was difficult for the other crew members to see the pale lights through the left window and they didn't try to describe any particular orientation or shape to the lights. They did, however, agree that there were some lights at the left where the pilot indicated.


5:44:07 AARTCC - JAL1628, sir, do you still have the traffic?

5:44:12 JAL1628 - Ah, say again please.

5:44:13 ARTCC - JAL1628 heavy.. Do you still have the traffic?

5:44:17 JAL1628 - Ah, affirmative, ah, nine o'clock.

Captain Terauchi recalled the reappearance of the "mothership." "We flew toward Talkeetna at an altitude of 31,000 ft. The spaceship was still following us, not leaving us at all.

So it seems that the object trailed the plane, which cloud could do that?


5:39:10 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, roger. At your discretion proceed directly to Talkeetna, J125 [to] Anchorage.

The "mothership" was behind and to the left before the right turn. Therefore there were three possible outcomes of the turn assuming that the object didn't just "disappear": (a) if the object remained stationary while the plane turned it would initially "disappear" from the left side and then reappear nearly behind the plane but on the right hand side after 30 seconds to minute of turning; (b) if the object also made a right hand turn but did so on the "outside" of the airplane's turn (i.e., at a much larger turning radius) then it would stay to the left and behind and be continually visible at the left; (c) if the object also made a right turn but trailed behind the airplane it would remain invisible during the turn.

The conclusion that the object may have trailed behind during the turn is consistent with a radar report made at the time..

While the plane was turning the ROCC confirmed an anomalous radar target in the vicinity of the plane. (Note: some of the times given below do not agree with the times in the FAA transcript.

This is because some of the transcript times are in error. The times given below agree with the FAA-supplied tape recording of the conversations between the FAA controllers, ROCC and the aircraft.)

5:38:57 AARTCC - Anchorage Center.

5:38:58 ROCC - Ya, this is one dash two again. On some other equipment here we have confirmed there is a flight size of two around. One primary return only.

5:39:05 AARTCC - OK. Where is, is he following him.?

5:39:07 ROCC - It looks like he is, yes..

5:39:10 AARTCC - OK. Standby.



The use of the phrase "flight of two" indicated that, on the radar screen, the JAL1628 had a companion. That companion appeared as a primary return only (no transponder). Moreover, it appeared to the ROCC that the companion was "following" that is, it was behind the plane.
Soon after the ROCC confirmed a "flight of two," the AARTCC resumed communication with the plane:


www.ufoevidence.org...

In the book DISCLOSURE of Steven Greer, Former FAA Division Chief John Callahan said that in order to investigate what happened they called the military 12 days later for their tapes and all their data of the incident and ship that down.

Remarkably the military called them one hour later back with the message that they had because of they were short on their tapes they had to put them back in service.

So despite the absence of those military tapes they looked again to all the data of that incident.

After that this very remarkable briefing happened.


Then the next day I got a call from someone with the Scientific Study Group [for President Reagan], or the CIA, I’m not sure who it was, the first call. And they had some questions about the incident. And I had said, I don’t know what you are talking about, you probably want to call the Admiral [FAA Administrator Engen].

Well a few minutes later the Admiral calls down and says, I have set up a briefing tomorrow morning at 9:00 am in the round room. Bring all the stuff you have.

Bring everybody up there and give them whatever they want. We want to get out of it. Just let them do whatever they want. So I brought all the people from the Tech Center. We had all kinds of boxes of data that we had them print out; it filled up the room.

They brought in three people from the FBI, three people from the CIA, and three people from Reagan’s Scientific Study team — I don’t know who the rest of the people were but they were all excited…

When they got done, they actually swore all these other guys in there that this never took place. We never had this meeting. And this was never recorded.

SG: Who said that? Who was saying that?

JC: This was one of the guys from the CIA. Okay? That they were never there and this never happened.

At the time I said, well I don’t know why you are saying this. I mean, there was something there and if it’s not the stealth bomber, then you know, it’s a UFO. And if it’s a UFO, why wouldn’t you want the people to know? Oh, they got all excited over that. You don’t even want to say those words.

He said this is the first time they ever had 30 minutes of radar data on a UFO.

And they are all itching to get their hands onto the data and to find out what it is and what really goes on. He says if they come out and told the American public that they ran into a UFO out there, it would cause panic across the country.

So therefore, you can’t talk about it. And they are going to take all this data…


www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Regarding my post above were John Callahan’s said that “The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed I thought you would find it interesting to know what happened then.

Because of shortage of space in the above reply I post it here after typing it first over from out the book DISCLOSURE.


At the end, the Japanese 747 is leaving the airspace, and there’s a United Airlines flight up coming up to land in Alaska.

The controller says to the United, we’ve got Japanese 747 up here and he’s being chased, followed by a UFO and we’d like you to check him out.

Can we leave you at that altitude? And the United says, fine, sure.

And so they gave him a left turn, 20 degrees or so, keep him at his altitude and they kind of run him toward the Japanese 747.

Once the two airplanes pass, that target [UFO] follows the United down through the airspace until he gets on final approach and then the UFO disappeared.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 



I'm sure you can get some sort of a return from a larger cloud under conditions even though these type of radar systems are not meant to.


Radars depend more on the user interpretation than the quality of the radar. In our days the radar systems do most of the calculations and present a very nice colorful display so it is easier for the pilot to interpret that data.

You can view how many clouds, how big, and how dense (for example, if it has ice inside) they are.

Like looking up in the sky you can see all sorts of shapes in clouds, in a radar, you can also get very different data. Weather has so many factors that you have to think about all the scenarios before coming to a conclusion regarding to what you're seeing. Just because you have a blip on the radar, doesn't mean the blip is what it looks like.


There is lots of stuff which can paint some kind of target on the scope. The devil is in the details.


Details and experience are everything, actually.

All sorts of weird stuff happens "up there". You need to have a steady and racional eye to have an interpretation on the data that is displayed to you.

We are trained to view everything in the plane as tools, and tools that can fail and give you incorrect data.

Using that philosophy, we also study the possible causes for that individual aspect. So, even if a tool fails, we can still gather information from it, because we also know what can make it fail and under which circumstances.

But that aspect is not particularly positive, every time, at least.

That opens up the window of human mistake. There are numerous crashes caused by bad information absorption from the pilot, and the reasons go from ignorance, too much information, not enough information, wrong information, and so on...


Depending on what was seen on scope we could potentially draw some kind of conclusion.


Some time ago I saw an article regarding an ATC controller that used radar data as art.

That is a good example of how experience and understanding play a huge rolle in radar reading.

Now, we may see the radar data from back then, and have a totally different conclusion. But in the moment it's a different thing.

Imagine that you're on the radar, and someone calls you and say "hey, there is this 747 that is warning us that he is being followed by a UFO".

Right there you have a piece of information that CAN (and will) change the radar operator interpretation capability.

He is no longer watching some clouds in the monitor, now he has to consider the possibility of the 747 being chased by a UFO AND the possible wrong signal on the radar.

The operator is watching a cloud, but a guy from a 747 is saying "hey, I'm being chased up here", so now the psychological aspect kicks in.

The radar operator may think "is this thing working properly? Am I reading a cloud and it's a cloud, or I'm just receiving the signal as a cloud?".

It's not a joke that stealth aircrafts actually appear on radar as birds. They actually look like birds on the radar screen.

Radars are great to say to you "there is something up there". But saying to you WHAT that is, depends much more on the radar operator interpretation, rather than the technology (unless you have multiple radar systems, like heat signatures and so on).

[edit on 22/2/10 by Tifozi]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Can I ask you a favor? And it's honestly a favor, I'm not putting down your sources.

I love this debate, so, to keep a good quality standard, please use different sources for your backup. Steven Greer and the Disclosure issue has a severe bad effect to my eyes. lol

(I'm not saying to not post the stuff you are posting. Just pick the same thing from another source. This will clear issues with corrupt data coming from the wrong sources.)

Thank you.


The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed.

There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation.


The UA flight said that they haven't seen anything. They didn't gave any visual confirmation.

The visual confirmation comes from the crew of the flight affected. Also their testimony is important, you have to keep their visual confirmation in a gray area for appreciation. Nobody else confirmed the UFO visually.

Regarding the radar data, it's what we are discussing right now. It's very open to interpretation.

My personal opinion? Something weird happened up there, and not all can be explained. The problem is that you have some aspects that are easily explained, but those same aspects of the case go into direct confrontation to other aspects that you can't explain.

It's like a good story about a victim that keeps getting messed up by something wrong that the victim did while was being attacked.


The spaceship was still following us, not leaving us at all


For the "stalking" aspect of the case I have to consider that it was a cloud, because of the behavior.

A stationary object (distant and big, like the Moon for example) will look like it's following you if you don't recognize it has a big stationary object.

From the report, you can see that the UFO was stalking them on a very steady and precise way. From my experience, and within my own knowledge, it is really very hard to keep perfect alignment with a target that is actually trying to get away from you.

If you see aircraft in formation, as tight as the formation can be, you still see small differences in balance, trajectory and height.

But that doesn't happen with clouds, or the Moon, or with stars. This is one of the aspects that put me on the side of a mirage or bad object id.


The conclusion that the object may have trailed behind during the turn is consistent with a radar report made at the time


I think this has been discussed before, but I think that this is a good example of bad choice of words.

The captain saying "they are following us", explained by the way he did, appears as the object is actually moving behind them.

While the radar operator, looks to me, as he said "they are still following you", but it was the same as he was saying "they are still behind you", no movement involved, which can be applied to the cloud theory.

(I might have this point wrong since I'm pulling it out of my memory)


5:38:58 ROCC - Ya, this is one dash two again. On some other equipment here we have confirmed there is a flight size of two around. One primary return only.

5:39:05 AARTCC - OK. Where is, is he following him.?

5:39:07 ROCC - It looks like he is, yes..


This is where my doubts pop up.

The radar operator doesn't put his feet down and say "he is being followed by a unknown aircraft".

He showed that he wasn't sure about what he was reading on the scope, which can trace you back to the fact that clouds may appear different on radars, and since he didn't know if the radar had some problem that was getting him that weird target, he assumed it was a UFO, but still, he showed that he wasn't sure about it.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Can I ask you a favor? And it's honestly a favor, I'm not putting down your sources.

I love this debate, so, to keep a good quality standard, please use different sources for your backup. Steven Greer and the Disclosure issue has a severe bad effect to my eyes. lol

(I'm not saying to not post the stuff you are posting. Just pick the same thing from another source. This will clear issues with corrupt data coming from the wrong sources.)


Sorry to hear that my postings from Steven Greer and the Disclosure issue has such a severe bad effect to your eyes.

I am even sorrier for you for the fact that I don’t see in any way why I should pick up the same things from another source.

Therefore I cannot comply with your favor.

And because of that and also because I am really concerned about your eyes, the only thing I can do for you is to advise you to not read my posts again.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


We are in search for truth and denying ignorance in here. That's the true philosophy of ATS.

I do respect your consideration for Steve Greer, because everyone has the right to own an opinion, and the beauty of a debate is in the point in which the different parts disagree.

Having that said, Steve Greer is very well known for presenting "evidence" in his own way. Changing a "," or a "." in a text, which by itself is already very hard to comprehend and can have different interpretations, poisons the real truth about this cases.

What we need, is raw information, from the sources/witnesses them-selfs.

What people like Greer (and the whole Disclosure project for that matter) do is to spice things up, telling a half-lie.

If someone says "I think I just saw a flying disc, and I may have some data about it", people like Greer, who seek profit from ufology, will announce by topic something like "X announced that he saw a flying disc and has data to back it up".

Which will sell more? The first (honest) or the second (presented in an attractive way)?

That was my point. I just want a healthy debate, with true information that we can debate. Not some interpretation of a guy who read the interpretation of a report.

Instead of posting a direct response to that little detail, you could have replied to my points in the rest of the post.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


We are in search for truth and denying ignorance in here. That's the true philosophy of ATS.


Right.


Originally posted by Tifozi
I do respect your consideration for Steve Greer, because everyone has the right to own an opinion, and the beauty of a debate is in the point in which the different parts disagree.

Having that said, Steve Greer is very well known for presenting "evidence" in his own way. Changing a "," or a "." in a text, which by itself is already very hard to comprehend and can have different interpretations, poisons the real truth about this cases.


Why do you keep harping on Steven Greer here, can you show me where I posted something from him personally in this thread then?

I just posted a small excerpt from one of the many witness testimonies in his excellent book DISCLOSURE which are all from military and government people and I will do that again if I think it fits the discussion.

If you really are searching for the truth regarding the UFO/ET phenomenon I can strongly recommend you to read it.


Originally posted by Tifozi
What we need, is raw information, from the sources/witnesses them-selfs.


Well, regarding the JAL1628 case you can read most of that raw information from the sources/witnesses them-selfs, those pilots already in this thread.


Originally posted by Tifozi
What people like Greer (and the whole Disclosure project for that matter) do is to spice things up, telling a half-lie.


That's a lie.


Originally posted by Tifozi
That was my point. I just want a healthy debate, with true information that we can debate. Not some interpretation of a guy who read the interpretation of a report.


Look what you say there, “you just want a healthy debate, with true information that we can debate. Not some interpretation of a guy who read the interpretation of a report”.

While the information I posted in here was from a man who was for 6 years the Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
That was my point. I just want a healthy debate, with true information that we can debate. Not some interpretation of a guy who read the interpretation of a report.


Good point Tifozi, let's stick to the facts. Some people have so badly misinterpreted the facts, some of those misinterpretations have grown to the status of myths, legends, and I'd have to say once the misinterpretation is pointed out and the claims continue, I'd almost have to call them fabrications or lies though that may be too harsh since they aren't intentional deceptions, but even though unintentional, they are deceptions.


Originally posted by spacevisitor
Captain Terauchi recalled the reappearance of the "mothership." "We flew toward Talkeetna at an altitude of 31,000 ft. The spaceship was still following us, not leaving us at all.


OK I think this is a big misunderstanding. The mothership, radar return, cloud was moving but very slowly as it was just lazily drifting through the sky, and I know this because the same guy who posted that satellite weather image of the cloud at the time of the JL1628 sighting also posted another satellite image later and the cloud had moved, apparently from lazily drifting through the sky as clouds tend to do. But for the purposes of our discussion relative to the mach 0.8 speed of the 747, let's consider the cloud to be relatively motionless compared to that mach 0.8 velocity. Now let's talk about the visual data and the radar data.

The lights "followed" the plane, that's exactly what mirages do, planets, too. But the radar contact did NOT follow the plane, and anyone who thinks it did hasn't examined the facts very closely. Look at the blue arrows of the radar returns in this satellite image showing the plane's flight path and tell me if you think they show an object following the plane, or a stationary object? Anyone who thinks those blue arrows show an object following the plane has cognitive perception issues. The red line shows the 747's flight path.



But don't get me wrong spacevisitor, I used to be in the same boat as you where I believed the lies that people told me about UFO sightings. But as I said in the OP when you do in-depth research on your own you find out about these misrepresentations the authors give to make their story sound more exciting than it really is.

Now let me make up a story and see if you believe it. A man has some lettuce growing in his garden and he sees a rabbit eating his lettuce. By this time the lettuce head is half eaten. and he decides to go to the front of his house to get his walking stick so he can use it to beat the rabbit away. By the time he comes back to his back door, he sees the other half of the lettuce head is eaten, and guess by who? It was eaten by little green leprechauns. How do I know this, well I have a belief in Leprechauns so I believe it's true, and anyway nobody saw who ate the other half of the lettuce, and you can't prove it wasn't leprechauns that ate it. "But what about the rabbit he saw earlier?", you may ask. Well I don't want facts like that to interfere with my belief in Leprechauns so let's choose to ignore that, shall we?

Now isn't that about the dumbest story you ever heard for why someone should believe in leprechauns? Yet that's analogous to the type of mythology and misinformation we are being fed on this JL1628 case, in this statement:


The "mothership" was behind and to the left before the right turn. Therefore there were three possible outcomes of the turn assuming that the object didn't just "disappear": (a) if the object remained stationary while the plane turned it would initially "disappear" from the left side and then reappear nearly behind the plane but on the right hand side after 30 seconds to minute of turning; (b) if the object also made a right hand turn but did so on the "outside" of the airplane's turn (i.e., at a much larger turning radius) then it would stay to the left and behind and be continually visible at the left; (c) if the object also made a right turn but trailed behind the airplane it would remain invisible during the turn.

The conclusion that the object may have trailed behind during the turn is consistent with a radar report made at the time.


OK in the analogy I gave, assuming the object didn't disappear is like saying Leprechauns ate the other half of the lettuce. Why assume leprechauns that you didn't see ate the lettuce when you saw a rabbit a few moments earlier? Likewise, why assume they didn't lose sight of the object during their turn, when they did lose sight of it a little while earlier, when they were flying straight? That argument is ridiculous even without the additional information we have about the possible mirage which might explain why they lost sight of the object both times, if the runway lights are directional that would be one possible explanation. When JL1628 was lined up with the north-south runway they saw the object, then they lost sight of it when they weren't lined up with either runway, then when they were lined up with the east west runway they saw it again. When they executed their 360 degree turn they were flying "backwards" to where they were no longer lined up with the E-W runway again so that may be one reason they didn't see it, or there could be other reasons too.

But to assume the object followed them around the 360 degree turn because they lost sight of it and had lost sight of it earlier before the turn, is just like assuming the leprechauns you didn't see ate the other half of the man's lettuce, even though he saw rabbits eat the first half of the lettuce. So did my story convince you of leprechauns eating the lettuce? If not then you should have no reason to believe the UFO followed the plane around the 360 degree turn. But so many people repeat that myth I can see why it's almost accepted by people who haven't examined the facts of the case.


Originally posted by spacevisitor

In the book DISCLOSURE of Steven Greer, Former FAA Division Chief John Callahan said that in order to investigate what happened they called the military 12 days later for their tapes and all their data of the incident and ship that down.

He said this is the first time they ever had 30 minutes of radar data on a UFO.


Yes and after analyzing all that data, what did they conclude?

www.nicap.org...


But then, on March 5, the FAA announced the results of the inquiry. According to the FAA press release the FAA "was unable to confirm the event" [15]. The event was unconfirmed because "a second radar target near the JAL flight at the time of the reported sighting was not another aircraft but rather a split radar return from the JAL Boeing 747." In other words, the FAA couldn't confirm the sighting on radar because the "traffic" or "primary return" reported by the AARTCC controller at the time of the sighting was merely an artifact of the radar set.


So basically if you accept the FAA report, there was nothing there but a false return. That's what I'm saying also, there was nothing there but a false return, meaning no aircraft. So if this is the best radar evidence we've got, we're in bad shape. It's a false return on ground radar and a cloud on the plane's radar.


Originally posted by Tifozi
Imagine that you're on the radar, and someone calls you and say "hey, there is this 747 that is warning us that he is being followed by a UFO".

Right there you have a piece of information that CAN (and will) change the radar operator interpretation capability.

He is no longer watching some clouds in the monitor, now he has to consider the possibility of the 747 being chased by a UFO AND the possible wrong signal on the radar.

The operator is watching a cloud, but a guy from a 747 is saying "hey, I'm being chased up here", so now the psychological aspect kicks in.


I think this is a good analysis of what happened in the JL1628 case, as the ground radar operator probably would have disregarded the returns completely had it not been for the UFO report by the pilot. Why? Because the returns didn't "track" like any object the operator would be concerned about:


At 5:51:32, after the planes had passed one another, the UA plane reported being able to see the JAL plane silhouetted against the sky. The UA captain could see the contrail as well as the jet but nothing else. The controller responded, "We got just a few primary hits on the target and then, ah, we really haven't got a good track on him, ever," meaning that the radar never showed a continuous track (a continuous series of "blips") of primary-only radar targets associated with the unusual "traffic."


So there was no track on the target from the ground, and the plane radar shows a cloud and not a solid object, so I don't really understand why some people think this radar data is impressive, it's really proving the opposite of what people claims it proves, that there was nothing really there, at least no solid object, just a cloud. Don't forget the UA flight visually confirmed there was no other object in the sky.


 
Mod edit: size tag corrected.

[edit on 23/2/2010 by ArMaP]

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
A stationary object (distant and big, like the Moon for example) will look like it's following you if you don't recognize it has a big stationary object.

From the report, you can see that the UFO was stalking them on a very steady and precise way. From my experience, and within my own knowledge, it is really very hard to keep perfect alignment with a target that is actually trying to get away from you.

If you see aircraft in formation, as tight as the formation can be, you still see small differences in balance, trajectory and height.

But that doesn't happen with clouds, or the Moon, or with stars. This is one of the aspects that put me on the side of a mirage or bad object id.


This is a correct analysis, lights reflected from a distant source will appear to "follow" the aircraft at the same speed and in the same direction. But this doesn't rule out the possibility of the reflection "dancing around" a bit as it apparently did. But other than the dancing around, it pretty much "followed" the aircraft just like a mirage would, just like the BOAC incident which is also likely a mirage.


Originally posted by Tifozi

Originally posted by spacevisitor
The conclusion that the object may have trailed behind during the turn is consistent with a radar report made at the time


I think this has been discussed before, but I think that this is a good example of bad choice of words.


Well I already proved leprechauns exist using the logic people are using saying the UFO followed the 747 around the 360 degree turn, so of course I don't believe either. And you're right, the visual image "followed" the plane (when it wasn't in the 360 degree turn), but the radar contact didn't follow the plane, it was more or less stationary as shown by the blue arrows.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Instead of posting a direct response to that little detail, you could have replied to my points in the rest of the post.


For you a detail, for me a cynically remark, but here is my reply on the rest of your points.


Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation.


The UA flight said that they haven't seen anything. They didn't gave any visual confirmation.


Don’t you find that very strange then, because if it was a cloud that was responsible for the mother ship explanation, and especially because of its size and rather strange looking characteristics, such as "flat pale white light" which the captain later described as like "two white fluorescent-like lights", they absolutely must have saw that cloud then in my opinion.

Especially because the AARTCC asked the JAL 1628 several times if there were clouds near their altitude, which they answered as no.


Originally posted by Tifozi
The visual confirmation comes from the crew of the flight affected. Also their testimony is important, you have to keep their visual confirmation in a gray area for appreciation. Nobody else confirmed the UFO visually.
Regarding the radar data, it's what we are discussing right now. It's very open to interpretation.


If you find their testimony so important, why then do you totally ignore it?

On the moment the UA plane arrived at the scene, it was confirmed by them that there was nothing to see, not even that cloud, so because of the lack of that cloud, the testimony of the JAL 1628 pilots is therefore indeed important and in fact the only possible explanation that it was indeed a UFO because a UFO can appear and disappear anytime its crew wanted it to do.


When the planes were about 12 miles apart and still approaching one another, the UA plane reported seeing the JAL plane and nothing else. By this time the "mothership" had apparently disappeared:



Originally posted by Tifozi

The spaceship was still following us, not leaving us at all


For the "stalking" aspect of the case I have to consider that it was a cloud, because of the behavior.

A stationary object (distant and big, like the Moon for example) will look like it's following you if you don't recognize it has a big stationary object.


Again, and especially if it was a cloud, that UA plane must have seen it.


Originally posted by Tifozi
The radar operator doesn't put his feet down and say "he is being followed by a unknown aircraft".


Of course that radar operator doesn't put his feet down, he is quite aware of the consequences when he would do that.

Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was grounded for his indiscretion of reporting a UFO.


Captain Terauchi was featured on numerous radio and TV programs and in People Magazine. Within a few months of these events he was grounded, apparently for his indiscretion of reporting a UFO, even though he was a senior captain with an excellent flying record.


www.ufoevidence.org...

I am convinced that radar operators are trained in never admitting or speak in UFO cases like this about calling the unknown object a UFO or an unknown aircraft, they [the AARTCC] named it in this case as “traffic” and the ROCC named it “him” or “he”.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join